I hope this is the case, however if you check the raw materials of tintomaps, lots of the very basic stuff are location based, such as minerals (iron, tin, copper, saltpeter etc), stone, lumber, clay and marble are all important thing, and there are wine and other brewing materials too, I don't know if you can produce stone through buildings even a location doesn't have stone resources.
I'm speculating here, but what I interpret from several Saturday buildings ins that RGO materials are pretty basic. For example, you produce wood that way.
Then you need wood for sheep and cattle farm (that produce meat, leather...), hemp farm (that produce textiles), tar kiln and similar (that produce shipbuilding resources), papermills (that produce paper), dye maker (that produce dyes), shipyards (for ships)... You can build them in different areas. You could have them in a forested area in your empire that produce wood. But you can also build them in other parts. If manpower is a limiting factor, or building are built organically by estates, or market access for other goods needed (dyes, etc) they can fit better in a coastal, well developed city.
That is usually a self-sustained cycle, both in real life and in other games (thinking of games like Stellaris). You want to supply your shipyard in the coast or your weapons workshop, that at game start may seem more of a wood/iron issue. But as the game advances you want bigger buildings with more burghers working on them, which requires increasing quantities of things like glass, bricks, etc (for the buildings construction and upkeep) and beer, textiles... (for the burghers). It is increased not only because you need more, but because later production method requires access to more complex supply chains and because your society will likely end with higher proportion of elites by the end. So eventually you also need ancillary industries to supply things that by game start are exceptional "luxury" items. Wanting to produce scientific or cultural progress will also require population to be supplied of those consumer goods.
That cycle means forest work, mining etc may be more relevant by game start than by game end. The longer in the game, the more relevant easier construction cost, market access, burgher population and so are for choosing a location for a industry. So having a few "big" locations in northern Scandinavia that produce wood is unlikely to be very relevant economically in comparison with Stockholm. My guess is that you want to develop them as long as needed to keep a wood surplus. Then you'll have an ecosystem of higher added-value trade good production in the coast.
There may be some minor scale advantages in splitting or merging 8000 pops working on a single wood RGO vs 8x1000 pops in eight wood RGOs. And having a lot of granularity may allow you to have 6x1000 wood RGOs + 1x1000 stone + 1x1000 copper locations. But I hope the game is not so micromanagement heavy that we end min-maxing RGOs allocation per resource among the core part of the game rather than building more sofisticated parts of the economy. If you are for example Sweden, a single huge Falun copper mine should make you so excedentary in copper that fine tuning locations for small boosts is not very attractive. You could actually see parts of your empire as the "bread basket" or the "fur supply colony" without them feeling particularly core regions. In Stellaris you stack mining modifiers for your mining/agricultural world, but that is basically its function: to supply minerals/food to other, more interesting worls. It becomes a bit boring having several of the same type.
I think location density is more driven for political (how precise borders can get) and military (where choke points and bottlenecs are) gameplay than economic gameplay
